as i know economy need freedom that never exist in iran and The electrical resistance of an electrical element is the opposition to the passage of an electric current through that element; the inverse quantity is electrical conductance, the ease at which an electric current passes. Electrical resistance shares some conceptual parallels with the mechanical notion of friction. The SI unit of electrical resistance is the ohm (Ω), while electrical conductance is measured in siemens (S).

The hypocrisy of a Western Governments, supporting a nuclear armed Isreal – which obtained it’s arsenal of WMD’s through a clandestine weapon’s programme – is overwhelming!
Whilst we are constantly fed lies and propaganda about the ‘Iranian Threat’, our governments intentionally turn a blind eye to, and fully support, vile dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia.

As for suicide bombers, fundamentalism and all that which some posters talked about, it should be remembered that Saudi Arabia is notoriously the most important source of money and logistics to fundamentalist terrorism. None the less, what are the sanctions towards? I don't say Iran is a mere victim of bad guys, but, come on, we all know the real problem is not that Iran's regime is fundamentalist and dangerous when we can easily see that authoritarian and backwards Saudi Arabia is the West's best ally in the region, that Saudis are financing and supporting Western-backed rebels in Syria and so on. Saudi Arabia happens to be even more fundamentalist than Iran (only witout a nuke) and to finance all kinds of terrorism as well as fundamentalist madrasahs where children are taught to hate and fight for jihad. There should simply be more questioning about why Iran was chosen as the "bad guy" and Saudi Arabia not only is tolerated, but is also actively helped by the West as an ally with ambitions to being the sole regional power.

The sanctions will end when the religious dictatorship in Iran gets overthrown (ending their support for Hamas and other fanatical Moslem organizations).
And also the end of their nuclear program, which will only result in the annihilation of Iran if they were mad enough to lob a bomb at Israel.

One comment on Iran possessing a nuclear weapon as opposed to the other countries (ex N Korea?) that have them.
During the cold war, they called it mutually assured destruction.
Noone was insane enough (just) to use a weapon where the retaliation would take their country back to the stone age.
Iran is different, fundamental religion is in charge with people who I believe would be willing to destroy themselves if they acheived their own goals in the process (notice the absence in the world of Christian suicide bombers, though there are plenty Christian fundamentalist nutters out there).

Maybe most commentators don't think all this Death to America, Death to Israel stuff is real. I suspect the real attitude is that most of the let Iran do what it wants commentators really don't care if Iran's intentions are as deadly as its rhetoric! That bothers me greatly!

It seems to me that an Iranian revolution on the Egyptian or Syrian scale, which seems imminent given the huge number of similarities of problems between the two countries (poverty, corruption, disconnected supposed 'elected' dictators), would perhaps bring fewer benefits in this case given the ingrained devolution of authority to the 'Supreme Leader' coupled with this so-called 'nostalgia' for the monarchy. Democracy is the only way towards a more balanced, functional society, yet if these uncomfortable hardships of the people were to boil over into a more groundbreaking revolution, which Mr Mashei would be sure to hijack, then the people are no more at an advantage because of Mr Mashei's submission to the will of Ayatollah - free speech suffocated by religious dogma and backwardness.
Also, I would assume that Mr Romney, if elected, would pursue an even more aggressive foreign agenda/sanctions on Iran, exacerbating their existing problems; the only solution for these people seems to be that of relaxing these financial sanctions which, of course, is impossible given Ahmedinejad's continual pursuit of their nuclear programme that risks destabilising the whole region.

If I may, I would suggest a significant difference between Iran and the Arab Spring countries - religion. Any time you have a theocracy, of any religion, the western ideas of liberal democracy, (near universal franchise, separation of powers, popularly elected (powerful) legislatures, rule of (civil/common) law, right of dissent, protection of minorities) is severely circumscribed.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who called American democracy an "experiment". That description is still true. Democracy is far from perfect. Elections do not express the will of the "People". Elections express the will of whatever group is well enough organized and can turn out the largest number of voters. As Sir Winston Churchill said; "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those others that have been tried."
There is no end to the making and enforcing of "virtue". As long as the mullahs (or priests or ministers or rabbis, etc.) can claim that God's word trumps mere man made laws, free, democratic societies will always be at a significant, even fatal, disadvantage.

Yes I would certainly agree that, to a certain extent, democracy is simply the lesser of two (or more) evils when it comes to representing the collective voice of the population, much as imprisonment is the least-bad solution to crime. Also, given the overwhelming number of candidates in Iran's election, it does seem that only the most organised/best funded group will succeed, regardless of suitability, and that the 'democracy' that they convince themselves of is, at best, a sham. However, I feel it is not necessary to assume that because Iran's theocratic system is so flawed, then that justifies a statement about democracy's inadequacy as a whole in expressing the will of the 'People'. You seem to imply that there is a subtle contrast between the western 'ideas' of liberal democracy - which, by their nature, should ensure that the will of the People is enacted - and the reality of putting this in place. The most organised party will perhaps have an advantage over their competitor(s) in setting out agendas, putting on rallies, broadcasting etc, yet these 'organised' parties succeed ultimately because they pander to the real, pressing worries of the population, as opposed to resorting to people's fear of an omnipotent Almighty to legitimate their power (as the mullahs seem to do); they must be therefore expressing their will in some form - democracy is not entirely useless in this respect.

I think agree. Democracy has a chance of letting the majority of the voters put their wishes into action. Clearly, you need some form of a constitution / basic law to prevent the transient "whims" of the people from destroying democracy. To my mind this works better as a system of government than the distant misquotes of some old guy with a beard.

Sanctions against Iran are wrong, legally, morally and ethically. Iran has the right to a nuclear enrichment program, as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Only the Iranian people are suffering from the sanctions, and the regime will under no circumstances surrender its rights to nuclear energy as a result of Western threats and pressure. Not a single word is stated about Israel's nuclear weapons, nor those of any other country. Somehow the U.S. and Britain think that only certain countries should have nuclear capability, while other should not.

Iranian military forces are deployed in a strictly defensive posture; there is no indication that Iran seeks to attack any other country. Iran would be irrational or suicidal to attack Israel or any other nation in the region, but we talk as if an Iranian attack is likely or probable. Iran has not invaded any nation in more than 200 years. It's worth noting that the U.S. is the only nation to use nuclear weapons, and we used them against primarily civilian targets in Japan.

Actually, it is primarily the U.S. and Britain that are responsible for the sanctions - other members of the UN Security Council went along only reluctantly after a lot of back room arm twisting by the US Government.

The U.S. Government is the biggest bully in the world, threatening other countries like Iran, Cuba, North Korea in a belligerent and confrontational manner, somehow expecting positive results from the bullying tactics.

Ironically, the Iranian people are among the most pro-American people in the entire world, and Iran could be a great trading partner for Western products. Both the U.S. and Iran seek a stable Iraq and Afghanistan, oppose terrorism, drug trafficking, inter alia. It's unfortunate that the U.S. policy of confrontationalism and bullying prevents cooperation in areas of common interest.

You pretend though that Iran stated goal to remove Israel from the map is non-existent. How do you deal with a country that is completely upside down. You cannot saber rattle like that and not expect some retaliation. People have the right to self-determination and Iran does not allow this. When they tried in 2009 after the complete farce of an election for president, there were all crushed.

"Iran has the right to a nuclear enrichment program, as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty."

They're enriching uranium to 20%, when 4% is all that's needed to fuel a nuclear reactor. Seem a bit off to you?

"The U.S. Government is the biggest bully in the world, threatening other countries like Iran, Cuba, North Korea in a belligerent and confrontational manner, somehow expecting positive results from the bullying tactics."

Oh no, we're bullying North Korea. I bet they've had to torture just dozens of people to death to get over it.

You should also no that using Uranium to build a nuclear weapon is just about the most nonsensical that anyone could. I would venture that not a single uranium based nuclear weapon has been produced since the 50's

W-Tvlr...I completely comprehend your rationalization of how Great Britain and the United States are the Empire of the world...but when you start on about how Iranians are among the most pro-American of the world's cultural population...I imagine you standing on the edge of the cliff and the next second you are gone because you couldn't help but to jump off...Do you really believe the majority of Iran is pro-American??? Maybe you are trying to be PollyAnn-ish or, I hate to think that you really believe...

I disagree with most of the foremost person's statement, but in actuality many Iranians are pro-American because their country has blocked out much of Western culture. Curiosity if it may, why should a young free loving Iranian who has no memory of the revolution hate America? Back to the first comment though, its either the sanctions or a conflict between Israel & Persia....

"Iran has not invaded any nation in more than 200 years" - your point. It is absolutely correct. It is a signatory to the NPT (a multi-lateral international agreement). If peaceful countries who have signed international agreements are subject to both sanctions and threats of (unilateral) war, then the future of international law is very bleak. Why would any country sign an international agreement when it can be the target of unilateral action without any UN approval??

Has anyone considered that it is perfectly rational for Iran to develop nuclear weapons? It has nuclear armed Russia & Pakistan as neighbours. The nuclear armed US fifth fleet just offshore and nuclear armed Israel are threatening to bomb any day now. It has US forces over the border with Iraq against whom it had to fight a devastating US supported war in the 1980s.

So, if you were responsible for the defense of Iran, what would you do?

Even in the unlikely outcome that Ahmedinejad fell and Iran became a democracy I would not be surprised if the Iranian Uranium enrichment program continued.

Pakistan currently is the only Muslim country with the Atom bomb.
...And it is Anarchy in 40% of its territories.
There are daily bombings and guerrilla assaults against Army targets and buses.
Weekly assassination attempts on the President Zadari. He is only safe when abroad in the family villa in France.
This past weekend, Al Qaeda attempted to take a nuclear weapon at an air base with a team of suicidal raiders. They were repelled but with heavy losses.
Pakistan may be the most unstable government in the the Mideast this side of Syria.
They spend money on weapons programs, and fail to address epidemics of Polio and Leprosy!
And fail its people on education, health and welfare.
The Madrassas take over and brain wash their children.
___________________________________
Nuclear Pakistan as an model is the worst example for Iran to emulate.
Add the possibility of nuclear annihilation and it is a worst future than Syria, Iraq or even Somalia.

You asked: "So, if you were responsible for the defense of Iran, what would you do?"

I wouldn't be aggressively trying to undermine neighbours … Russia is not a threat … but rather an ally! Pakistan is not a threat!

Iran NEEDS enemies in order to justify it's own weapons programs … it NEEDS a bogeyman … Israel (the Little Satan) and the USA (the Big Satan) are necessary for the FASCIST ISLAMIST MULLOCRACY to keep the clampdown on the State

Wake up Lub … the USA is NO LONGER in Iraq (militarily) … and Iran has more sway on the Iraqis than EVER BEFORE because of the USA imposing democracy (that is, Shias RULE) … hello?

The Fleet was/is/will be on the High Seas around the Gulf and Indian Ocean as long as America wants to KEEP the world's OIL SUPPLY open and free to the world. IT'S A GIFT OF THE USA TO THE WORLD … another tax on American taxpayers brought to YOU free of charge

It's what Iran saysabout removing Israel from the face of the earth that gets the rest of the world to get together to try and stop them from getting nuclear weapons. If they would just stop the non-sense with Israel, I think over time this would fix itself.

hey why you people think about iran ? you cant say anything about sth that you haven't experience it. we don't think about Israel. who cares? we had a lot of problem but we are people.they just talk about wars . why? nobody wants war.if USA or Europe think about iran they wouldn't ban airplane thing to kill passengers . they could help people to defeat government not we are under pressure for USA , Israel

It's on YOU and your brothers to get rid of the MAD MULLAHS! I was at a rally in Toronto where the most heated exchanges with OTHER Muslims came from Iranians who were ANTI-ISLAMIST IRAN … they hated the Mullahs and their CRIMINAL REGIME … that's the untold story

You and your brothers are on the hot seat … GET RID OF THE MULLAHS or you'll be attacked! It can't be any clearer.

I would also like to point out that, sometime ago, the infamous "axis of evil" comprised North Korea. However, it seems that Korea got itself out of this axis as soon as it performed the first atomic weapon test. Since then the threats by Western governments stopped it has been completly forgotten by the western media. Is this the message that the West is sending to Iran?

Deterence works. Iran knows this - it's why it wants nukes in the first place - and the only further ill that could result from the West repeating the message is boredom.
(Tangentially, tho, I disagree that western media are silent about North Korea. There's a new story about the latest Kim's latest antics several times a week.)

Well that Axis of Evil was political speech making and rhetoric. I think Frum admitted that.
As for North Korea, the perplexing tests and possible fizzles may have given others liberty to relax a bit. However, there was talk of trying to take down that missile earlier this year (by S. Korea and Japan, should rocket cross their airspace - the test was a failure though).
Don't think people have stopped worrying about North Korea. Maybe pausing to see how the transition unfolds?

The whole "axis of evil" speech would have been more convincing if it had included places like Zimbabwe and Burma. The regimes there are at least as bad as Iran and Iraq. (North Korea, however, is in a class of its own.)

Evidently we agree. If Gadaffi had acquired nukes back in the 90's I seriously doubt that the Frence and Brits would have dared bomb his troops for six months. This is a powerful lesson for anyone who is not blind.

As you've said: "Don't think people have stopped worrying about North Korea …"

It's a problem and a worry BUT China MUST DEAL WITH IT. It's China's baby since it's on their doorstep. South Korea is alarmed but there's no getting away from the issue if you live in Seoul. It is a case of MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION … North Korea understands this clearly … they're NOT irrational … they have an agenda … the North Korean regime must implode from within … that's the best outcome … then change can occur but doen't be naive to think they'll easily tilt to the West … China is their BIG BROTHER.

'In the words of a middle-aged father trying to get his son to Canada: “Why should he stay? To watch the country tip into chaos?”'

This is exactly what is wrong with journalism. I expect better from TE, whose writer should understand the concept of sampling, surveys, and summary/models. You don't think I could find a middle-aged father in the US or Canada that would say the same thing? I am sure a larger portion of Iranian parents might express the same feeling, but picking quotations instead of reporting summary is what makes articles weak and potentially a mouthpiece.

I am sure I could also find "some people" in the Carolinas states that would feel nostalgia for the slave-owning era. Does this characterize the US?
This is another example of bad journalism. The explanation is simple: As usual, The Economist is trying to pass a message, not give information.

Since the rest of the article is about the Iranian people in general, this could be about introducing emotion or relatable quotation into the article, which would otherwise be what? A Gallup poll? If you can get non-government supplied statistics out of that country, by all means, write about it.

Well Israel wasn't around in 1945 when UN traditions got started in 1945.
Surprised it wasn't done alphabetically in French
- knowing De Gaulle,
-and with France being one of the first to sign onto the UN idea (ratified in August),
- and French being the language of diplomacy still at the time
- and France being the last major liberal democracy of sorts (albeit badly bruised one) on the European continent..
But doesn't the Irish delegation provide a buffer of sorts in seating arrangements?

* Iran cannot maintain status quo over the prevailing international pressure which seem to be tightening with passing day . Countries like India and other ASIAN nation have already reduced it's oil import from Iran. Refusing insurance to Iranian ship or ship carrying Iranian oil have further hit the oil export from Iran. China is the only country which seems not to be deterred by US's threat and sanction .
*Soon or later Iran has to give it's nuclear enrichment program. There are news of Israel preparation of storming nuclear facility. If US pressure does not yield it's desired results and cannot bring halt to IRAN nuclear program, the possibility of Israel attack cannot be declined.
* US will not be willingly to let Israel attack on Iran as it will distort the equation in middle east . Israel attack on Iran could mobilize Arab support for Iran and put America in tight corners.
* During Gulf war , Iraq too targeted Israel with Scud missile in hope for retaliation from Israel which then would have sided other Arab nation in it's support . However US pressure forced Israel to abandon any plan for retaliation . SO in light of above , i can say that US will be the only country who could strike IRAN nuclear facility and not Israel. If Israel hit then it would be in interest for Iran as it would be able to mobilize Arab support for it(May be not of regime but it's people at least) .
*Long economic blockade would lead discontent among citizen which could be the problem for Iran regime . In region having democratic Govt( virtually may be ), such would push common Iranian against it's own regime. It's finally economy which drive people .

The Arab states wouldn't do a thing if Israel struck at Iran's nuclear facilities. They are at least as fearful of Iranian nukes as Israel because they don't have a deterrent. In reality any such Israeli strike would only last a few days at most. The Arabs would deliberately dither about how to respond, release statements about meeting to co-ordinate a regional plan of action, and long before they decided what to do it would be all over. Iran is on it's own on this one.

It's not that easy to predict that Arab world would side with Israel . Things may look easy to predict but not that easy .
*If Israel strike , it could be projected as Israel another misadventure on Muslim world . It could fuel world Muslim sentiments against Jews. Until it's Shia against Sunni , it's easy to sideline Iran .But when it comes to Jew Vs Muslims .We know where it will be headed .
* Israel strike in Iran could make Iran the champion of Muslim world. That no Arab countries would love.
* American strike would be more acceptable for Arab world than Israel storming the nuclear facility in Iran

Given the Arab world's reaction to Israeli bombing of Syrian and Iraqi facilities, I've got a really hard time seeing them rise to Iran's defense. They don't need to "side with" Israel, just to do nothing.

*Iran will definitely strike back if Israel venture any military action inside Iran .Thanks to Israeli bombing of Syrian facilities , that had prompted them to have chemical weapon that could be used against foreign interference . If Syria can have such weapon, then Iran would definitely have such kind of weapon
* If retaliation happen it could turn in full scale war , in that scenario , we cannot expect the whole Arab world to be sided with Israel . They can ignore Israel bombing Iran facilities and will definitely be supportive of end which would be achieved but hoping that these nation would support Israel in case of war is dubious.
* As i told earlier that Arab world would want USA to strike instead of ISRAEL as it may fuel anger among people as would be like supporting Jews and cherishing them
* Patience is the key but it feeds on time . Time what Iran want to develop nuclear weapon .

If Israel were to strike, I'd be more worried about China attempting to use Iran as a puppet. They have no problems helping out North Korea every now and then.. I'm wondering if they would sell arms to Iran.

Even if Iran had chemical weapons (which it probably does) I don't see how you could project that they would use them... remember in the Iran/Iraq war the US armed Iraq used chemical weapons in Iran (which the US refused to condemn) but the Iranians never retaliated in kind - frankly this shows that Iran are in fact less trigger happy than the Israelis who DO in fact have nukes

Simon Hibbs:
While I would agree with you that there would likely be initial dithering on the part of 'The Arab states' (BTW, we all remember that Iranians are Persians, not Arabs). However, if Israel went ahead with its strike on Iran, one could expect a very robust response from Iran. This is not a regime to swallow such a 'humiliation' in the world's eyes. Besides conventional weapons, it would likely take war activities wherever it could (think other countries etc.). Its allied popular 'liberation' movements like Hamas etc would feel compelled to join the fight against the 'aggressor'. Before we knew it, the conflict could engulf more than two countries. Yes, the first strikes will last 'a few days', but the 'justified' violent response/ aftermath would probably last for years - if not decades - to come.

The results would be devastating for Israel first and the whole region (if not the world), second. Israel would find itself in be less secure and safe environment. Besides, the world's opinion would turn roundly against the 'aggressor'; If America is forced to join the war, the war-mongering Israeli Lobby in the US would loose legitimacy; and Israelis (particularly the Soviet Jewry) would be fleeing their own country.

Iran is no Iraq (vast area, over 70m people). There would be no 'boots on the ground' or post-victory nation-building etc..

PS: Perhaps I am looking at 'the worst-case' scenario. But in matters of war, Israeli PM had better be ready to take responsibility for the 'unintended' consequences if the worst happened.
PS2: Related to Netanyahu's right-wing war propaganda, Peter Beinart Slams Israel Hard-Liners in Crisis of Zionismhttp://www.policymic.com/articles/10805/peter-beinart-slams-israel-hard-...